Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Alpharius wrote: That was a general list, not a greatbigtree specific one!
Fair enough... it's probably about the right count though.
As for making use of a dead person's image, and casting them in a major role... it's just odd. Almost like someone is making a movie like that just to show off their CGI talents, to get jobs with other companies. Like advertising, except you get paid to advertise sort of thing.
Making a movie with CGI of dead actors for the lead roll only works for me if the entire cast is CGI dead actors playing the other characters. No living actors please.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
I admit to having not read the thread, just want to ask if Andy Serkis will be playing the guy in ping pong ball suit over which the digital necromancers will superimpose the James Dean ghola?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 11:15:01
One wonders how many current actors have looked into doing something similar.
Take, say, Harrison Ford.
Be much easier to license his younger/earlier appearances to do yet another unwanted & unneeded Indiana Jones movie than go through the whole process of recasting or rebooting possibly..?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The problem with actors like Harrison Ford is that they can get typecast into their younger self roles which means that they can't get jobs so easily which actually suit their older self. So you end up with oddities like an old Indiana who isn't really as indiana because he's not young and jumping around as much any more (or he only manages it with CGI and stand ins).
Personally I thought he did really great in Cowboys and Aliens the role he played fit his age and character and voice really well.
reds8n wrote: One wonders how many current actors have looked into doing something similar.
Take, say, Harrison Ford.
Be much easier to license his younger/earlier appearances to do yet another unwanted & unneeded Indiana Jones movie than go through the whole process of recasting or rebooting possibly..?
Rumour is Tom ‘nutter who ruins movies because of his colossal ego’ Cruise insists on digital de-ageing. So seems it’s already kind of a thing. But for vanity’s sake.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
There is something to be said for using persons of historical importance as means of education, entertainment and mental well being. In Star Trek The Next Generation we are introduced to the Holodeck which can "summon" a digital recreation of such persons. Something I would love to experience in VR(or AR - or the Holodeck, as you never know!) is a master class with Ray Harryhausen or Bob Ross. While it could be abused, I still believe it can be used for good and to improve our way of life and protect a legacy by teaching the generations to come.
Todays dilemmas with computers are traced back to Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Computers are now an important part of our daily lives, and AI is now the new frontier but are we showing discipline for this technology? Bringing back something from the past is an idea we are fascinated with but should we? Those films are not merely legendary for their milestone vfx, but also as a sign and warning of things to come.
I saw Rogue One twice on release. The first time was magical seeing Carrie Fisher as she was in the mid-1970s and never did I hope to see Peter Cushing on the big screen, for I was too young to see his films in his time. Carrie Fisher then passed away merely days later and even though I had never met the woman it stung, so seeing the film a second time(about two weeks later) was different experience for that last shot. But as difficult as it was, it was a welcome moment during that depressing winter. Not a problem for The Last Jedi, I actually loved Carrie's "Mary Poppins" moment and felt all giddy when the film did something fantastic when we thought Leia would perish in space because Carrie had left us in real life...on with the show! It felt a bit like the first time we saw that tall Brachiosaurus in Jurrasic Park; Carrie would be staying with us for the rest of the film, and even into the one beyond! In fact, I think it might have been completely disrespectful doing away with Leia at that point as a "second death" would have been a bit too much to cope with! I suppose this christmas we shall hopefully be able to say good bye in a less painful way given some time. But like the Brachiosaurus...is it right to do so?
Is this in any way healthy for Carrie's family? They have given their blessing for even CGI to be used, but even so there is going to be Carrie's face all over the box office which could be difficult to cope with for the family itself who are deep down trying to move on.
As with every aspect of human life, this will continue to challenge us.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/17 16:27:14
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
BlaxicanX wrote: Tupac """appeared"""for a concert like 7 years ago (as a hologram). A bit late to try to fight this battle imo.
Was that just a 3D-fied version of his part in a music video?
Or, did they manipulate the image to present, and perform 'live'?
Showing recordings of people who are now dead is nothing new. We have been doing that ever since as the first person on recorded onto film died.
But, using tech to make them do things the recordings could not show, that is more recent.
The death of the inherently indexical photograph (the idea that photographs accurately depict a snapshot of reality) is approaching with great speed. Arguably it should already be dead.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
Yours,
Ghoulish Necromancers"
"Dear Ghoulish Necromancers,
Sure.
Yours,
The Rights-Holders"
Fin.
Even the asking is shades of grey.
For Carrie Fisher, I think it's pretty obvious had it not been for her untimely passing, she would've taken part in Episode IX.
Peter Cushing? Well, I guess it comes to down to whether or not his estate felt he valued the role of Tarkin. If he greatly enjoyed it, and his return had occurred in his lifetime, reasonable assumption is he might've agreed to physically return. And according to the Wiki, he was satisfied with the role.
Wiki (yes, I know, but there are citations) wrote:When Star Wars was first released in 1977, most preliminary advertisements touted Cushing's Tarkin as the primary antagonist of the film, not Vader;[120] Cushing was extremely pleased with the final film, and he claimed his only disappointment was that Tarkin was killed and could not appear in the subsequent sequels. The film gave Cushing the highest amount of visibility of his entire career, and helped inspire younger audiences to watch his older films.[9][121][122]
And here, had the estate declined the use of his likeness, then a work around could've been achieved (as others have suggested here).
But James Dean here? Totally different. It's not a belated sequel, or using modern technology to finish his 'final role'. It's exactly as Excommunicatus put in the quote above - money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 14:13:02
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
The world revolves around the (stupid) idea that we perform labour and in return receive hard cash.
The MCU is, IMO, an utterly artless series of pro-U.S. propaganda films designed to do little else but rake in buckets of cash.
So what?
While we live in a Capitalist world, "they're in it for the money" is not a valid criticism.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The death of the inherently indexical photograph (the idea that photographs accurately depict a snapshot of reality) is approaching with great speed. Arguably it should already be dead.
That pic was edited somewhere between 1930 and 1940, to exclude Yezhov. The Cottingley Fairies were 'photographed' in 1917.
So, you haven't been able to take a photo at face value for at least the last century.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/18 18:04:54
Difference here is that some poor mook is going to have to MoCap for ‘James Dean’, and won’t get the full soldier’s shilling.
Given James Dean is best remembered for his attitude, physical acting, body language and that is a major part.
And I very much doubt the studio will be paying James Dean’s estate top whack Hollywood wage.
So it’s all on the cheap, aiming for a large profit.
It’s just so utterly needless. And I firmly hope that the wider movie going public rejects such shenanigans, and the film loses the studio money.
Worse, to the best of my research, James Dean had no direct descendants. And was an Only Child. So who exactly is in charge of his estate? Who is making the money here? Do they actually deserve it?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
We don't care about workers; especially not when doing so 'disadvantages' some poor little multinational corporation.
Spoiler Alert: The entire TV and film industry is grossly wasteful and almost entirely unnecessary and there are millions and millions of BGs, stand-ins and doubles that would kill for the right to wear that ping-pong suit.
What about them? Right, we don't care about them. Apparently we only care about some poor A-lister being jipped.
Per the Hollywood Reporter, likeness rights were "obtained" from "his family".
Because cash grab or not, even the best paid actors and actresses are putting in some work.
When one casts say, Robert Downey Junior or Angelina Jolie, at least its them putting in the effort.
Making a ‘new’ James Dean movie, when the guy tragically died decades before most modern movie goers were born? It’s crass, distasteful and ghoulish.
As already covered, if it was an attempt to finish his last role? Still a bit grave robbery, but somewhat justified, after a fashion.
This is just sheer, naked greed. An attempt to literally cash in on a name, where the actual actor does less work than Tom Bloody Cruise.
I for one find this morally reprehensible. I’m a smart man, but I’m confounded in trying to find any kind of justification for this.
You want to make the big bucks in Hollywood? You either need to invest in an all-star cast and craft something decent, or take a serious punt on a maverick director who can make a solid film for a pittance and turn that into millions if not billions.
I get you’ve a chip on your shoulder about Marvel - but they are solid, reliable, entertaining fare. They’ve earned their massive profits by making objectively decent movies. Some better than others, natch. But it still required clever casting, good stories and solid SFX.
This? This is simply grave robbing. It’s using a likeness, and giving it top billing. To me, it’s morally unjustifiable. Especially when James Dean died what, 66 years ago - before any kind of CGI occurred. Before even rotoscoping really hit.
The whole permission thing is basically tapping up someone who likely never met the man or his parents, and saying ‘we’ll give you cash if you let us dig up his body’.
Again, see my comparison above for Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing. At least behind those are people who knew and deeply love them giving their blessing, on account we can reliably confirm if not exactly what they would’ve wanted, they wouldn’t have objected, because they’re roles the deceased actively enjoyed.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
You need to spend some time on-set. I think you'd be really, really surprised by how few shots have the 'name' in them. Unless it involves a relative close-up of the face, chances are extremely good that you're looking at a stand-in actor.
I spent a fortnight working in Locations on a Netflix show that you would definitely have heard of over the summer. The shot(s) all involved [A-list name]'s character, but [A-list name] was not even in Canada at the time. They used a stand-in for all of them. All of [A-list name]'s acting took place in studio.
Your objections all boil down to "I subjectively don't like this particular instance". Which is fine, but it's not a fruitful avenue for debate.
My objection to Marvel is the same; I subjectively do not like movies featuring conventionally-attractive people quipping in between blocks of nakedly pro-U.S. propaganda, but I recognize that it s a subjective opinion and nobody else has to care.
It also doesn't mean I try to get Captain America: The Quest for Geo-Political Significance shut down in post.
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
Yours,
Ghoulish Necromancers"
"Dear Ghoulish Necromancers,
Sure.
Yours,
The Rights-Holders"
Fin.
If it were that easy you'd have Laurence Oliver, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Richard Attenbourough, Fay Wray and Peter O'Toole all over the shop(well, the big screen).
Yes, Hollywood is obviously a greedy money-making machine, and has got away with a lot since the dawn of the cinema. But make no mistake - copyright, likeness and legal issues are fiercely contended behind the scenes. For the last decade we have had the technology to do digital doubles of deceased actors and historical persons, and the money to get the job done, but the legal challenges involved have led to most being dead ends. The most successful attempts have been tasteful efforts with the deceased actor having some history with the filmmaker(but not in everycase). Examples being are The Crow, Gladiator and Rogue One.
And let us not pretend that there are no such thing as Actors groups to put the boot in...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excommunicatus wrote: You need to spend some time on-set. I think you'd be really, really surprised by how few shots have the 'name' in them. Unless it involves a relative close-up of the face, chances are extremely good that you're looking at a stand-in actor.
I spent a fortnight working in Locations on a Netflix show that you would definitely have heard of over the summer. The shot(s) all involved [A-list name]'s character, but [A-list name] was not even in Canada at the time. They used a stand-in for all of them. All of [A-list name]'s acting took place in studio.
Your objections all boil down to "I subjectively don't like this particular instance". Which is fine, but it's not a fruitful avenue for debate.
My objection to Marvel is the same; I subjectively do not like movies featuring conventionally-attractive people quipping in between blocks of nakedly pro-U.S. propaganda, but I recognize that it s a subjective opinion and nobody else has to care.
It also doesn't mean I try to get Captain America: The Quest for Geo-Political Significance shut down in post.
This whole topic aside, I'm genuinely interested in your work! What other stuff have you done in the past - that you are allowed to talk about?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 21:35:14